Christianity

[henry quirk]

Your previous use of the words "therefore cannot" preclude this avenue of argument for you.

Yours is the burden of proving that consciousness is (unlike swetness) not something that can emerge from the complex arrangement of matter.

Nope. The burden is on you to show mind as property of a physical system.

What was your argument that consciousness is a magic property that has to be made out of conscious particles?

I offered none...if you read the last 15 to 20 pages, you'd know that.

Anyway: you got nuthin'.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your previous use of the words "therefore cannot" preclude this avenue of argument for you.

Yours is the burden of proving that consciousness is (unlike swetness) not something that can emerge from the complex arrangement of matter.

Nope. The burden is on you to show mind as property of a physical system.

What was your argument that consciousness is a magic property that has to be made out of conscious particles?

I offered none...if you read the last 15 to 20 pages, you'd know that.

Anyway: you got nuthin'.

I offer this tidbit: consciousness could very well be a product of matter. If you were unable to substantiate your argument that it cannot possibly be so you wouldn't need to shift the burden of proof.

I can get by perfectly well for instance by providing any basic reason at all to suppose that I am right. Such as the loss of consciousness that occurs when you take physical damage to the physical matter inside your head. This trivial observation is enough to deal with the argument you arrogantly assumed nobody can cope with.

[henry quirk]

consciousness could very well be a product of matter.

Yes, I've acknowledged that several times over the past 20 pages.

you wouldn't need to shift the burden of proof.

I haven't. You, john come lately, are shiftin' the burden.

I can get by perfectly well for instance by providing any basic reason at all to suppose that I am right. Such as the loss of consciousness that occurs when you take physical damage to the physical matter inside your head.

Indeed. I can counter with the end results of hemispherectomies and the conclusions of Penfield and Eccles and my own notions of man as a composite.

Funny how it took 20 pages , thereabouts, for someone to bring up head injuries as an evidence.

Anyway: you still got nuthin'.

I'm done till someone offers sumthin' startling.

[FlashDangerpants]

THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT IS BULLSHIT.

I never said PROPERTIES ARE IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THE INGREDIENTS DON'T CONTAIN IT.

Not once.

All I wanna know -- and this is me, stayin' on track -- is how unconscious particles produce consciousness.

That's been my question for 15 pages.

Again: go read the past 15 pages and quit wastin' my time.

What do you think you are saying with this sentence :

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Apparently he didn't say it. Or he didn't mean it. Or there are 20 other pages you have to read before you can understand that sentence. The words 'therefore' and 'cannot' are figments of your imagination or something and really it's just completely unfair to expedct Henry to mean them. Stop being such a bully!

[phyllo]

Stop being such a bully!

Okay. Will do.

[BigMike]

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Jun Kitazono, who works on projects at the University of Tokyo, has done a new study that shows how important certain types of connections between nerve cells are for figuring out what consciousness is. Connections go both ways between the parts of the brain that are important for consciousness (feed-forward and feed-back). The two-way processing is still very important whether you are looking at a human, a monkey, a mouse, a bird, or a fly. Researchers at Kyoto University in Japan have found that the fact that the brain network works both ways is a key to understanding where consciousness comes from.

The cortical and thalamic regions of the brain are the most important for consciousness. Less important for consciousness are other parts of the brain. The team is looking at different types of neural recordings to figure out how activity-based networks in the brain work.

[Dontaskme]

Where is the mind, in electrons, protons, and neutrons, who declares that apple is sweet!?

It’s here-now - now-here.

You are the mind without a centre - everywhere at once - - believe it or not - - that is the only answer available to you.

You are the mind right now right here asking itself where is the mind.

Everything known everything you point to is made of the mind.

And mind is just another word for consciousness which is just another word for knowing.

[bahman]

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Jun Kitazono, who works on projects at the University of Tokyo, has done a new study that shows how important certain types of connections between nerve cells are for figuring out what consciousness is. Connections go both ways between the parts of the brain that are important for consciousness (feed-forward and feed-back). The two-way processing is still very important whether you are looking at a human, a monkey, a mouse, a bird, or a fly. Researchers at Kyoto University in Japan have found that the fact that the brain network works both ways is a key to understanding where consciousness comes from.

The cortical and thalamic regions of the brain are the most important for consciousness. Less important for consciousness are other parts of the brain. The team is looking at different types of neural recordings to figure out how activity-based networks in the brain work.

All they can offer is that there is a correlation between conscious experience and physical activity in the brain. The hard problem of consciousness is unresolved. Even if one day someone finds an answer to the hard problem of consciousness then she./he can explain bottom-up phenomenon by bottom-up phenomenon I mean how consciousness can arise from physical activity in the brain. What is left is to explain how conscious experience can lead to causation, the so-called up-bottom phenomenon, like feeling the heat of the fire and moving your hand, where feeling the fire is a bottom-up phenomenon and moving your hand is the up-bottom phenomenon.

Needless to say that I have an argument against strong emergence.

In the end, can a network of people who are sending messages by mobile and they are sync in the same way that a brain is synced be conscious?

You also didn't address my argument for the existence of mind.

[BigMike]

So far, the only tidbit I offer is: electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious and therefore cannot, in any arrangement or quantity, produce or make consciousness (and yet here we are: (self) conscious beings).

Jun Kitazono, who works on projects at the University of Tokyo, has done a new study that shows how important certain types of connections between nerve cells are for figuring out what consciousness is. Connections go both ways between the parts of the brain that are important for consciousness (feed-forward and feed-back). The two-way processing is still very important whether you are looking at a human, a monkey, a mouse, a bird, or a fly. Researchers at Kyoto University in Japan have found that the fact that the brain network works both ways is a key to understanding where consciousness comes from.

The cortical and thalamic regions of the brain are the most important for consciousness. Less important for consciousness are other parts of the brain. The team is looking at different types of neural recordings to figure out how activity-based networks in the brain work.

All they can offer is that there is a correlation between conscious experience and physical activity in the brain. The hard problem of consciousness is unresolved. Even if one day someone finds an answer to the hard problem of consciousness then she./he can explain bottom-up phenomenon by bottom-up phenomenon I mean how consciousness can arise from physical activity in the brain. What is left is to explain how conscious experience can lead to causation, the so-called up-bottom phenomenon, like feeling the heat of the fire and moving your hand, where feeling the fire is a bottom-up phenomenon and moving your hand is the up-bottom phenomenon.

Needless to say that I have an argument against strong emergence.

In the end, can a network of people who are sending messages by mobile and they are sync in the same way that a brain is synced be conscious?

You also didn't address my argument for the existence of mind.

I merely wrote this to silence someone who had become locked in the same rut. He has repeatedly argued, over multiple pages and discussion threads, that material objects cannot produce awareness since "electrons, neutrons, and protons are not conscious." Non-material entities have no effect on how or what individuals think, feel, or do. I do not need consciousness, mind, the ghosts or spirits of my ancestors, or anything else of the type to conclude this. Simply put, Henry's foolishness just grew too tiresome.

[henry quirk]

bahman,

Yeah, don't waste your time on BM. Like the others, his is the religion of promissory materialism...

We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists...who often confuse their religion with their science. -John Eccles & Daniel Robinson

...he, like his fellow congregants, got nuthin'.

[attofishpi]

I think it is important for me to not only impart my wisdom upon the matter of how an arrangement of atoms can form consciousness, but also the wisdom of leading members of science such as David Chalmers on this matter, so here is what we understand in all its detail:-










..further to that, these videos are interesting:-
consciousness is non-computational, non algorithm, its essential functioning is at the quantum level. This then suggests that our consciousness is non-deterministic, that indeed our conscious mind is not determined, that it has free will.

Sir Roger Penrose – Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=43vuOpJY46s

Stuart Hammerof - Quantum Physics of Consciousness
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfmcEbD64XY

[BigMike]

I think it is important for me to not only impart my wisdom upon the matter of how an arrangement of atoms can form consciousness, but also the wisdom of leading members of science such as David Chalmers on this matter, so here is what we understand in all its detail:-

All that is a derailment and distraction. If David Chalmers, Roger Penrose, Stuart Hammeroff, or anybody else can show that consciousness can push atoms around, then I'm all ears. Short of that I really don't care.

[Harry Baird]

Harry, I am starting to like you rather a lot..

Well, that hopefully makes up for the folk who probably don't like me that much right now, what with the boxing analogies and all.

Consider this

- GOD/'GOD' (operating continuously in "real-time" from the top down)
- PHYSICS
- CHEMISTRY
- BIOLOGY
- REALITY (conscious perception)

Since I know God/'God' exist I shall include it into the above list as it is likely to be fundamental to the 5th point in the list. This entity MANIFESTS throught ALL matter including our brains, ergo it is my belief that we would not have consciouness without it

Consider that list operating in real-time - shimmering fields of vibrating energy, at the behest of the 1st in the list.

So in the case of NDE - out of body - and after death ...consciousness - a key part of what is required to be conscious - one could call it a soul, is commandered by the GOD, and it does, whatever IT does.

A few thoughts in response:

I suggest that the ultimate ideal is not being "commandeered" by God, which suggests an involuntary scenario, but coming voluntarily into alignment with God's will. Because God's will is what is best for us, coming voluntarily into alignment with it is in our best interests, and thus something that it is perfectly reasonable for us to voluntarily align with.

Re us not having consciousness without God: mmm, I'm not sure about this one. On the one hand, my understanding is that God created us, and that in that sense, sure, we wouldn't have consciousness without Him. On the other, I'm not convinced that our ongoing consciousness post our soul's creation requires God's active input. My sense is that He has delegated both consciousness and free will to us. That said, it is probably the case that the entire universe requires God's ongoing support, so, in that sense, maybe, yes, we could say that our ongoing consciousness is impossible without God.

Re "shimmering fields of vibrating energy": that's a nice way of putting it. It rings true.

Finally: I'd be very interested in discussing your communications with your "sage"/"God" with you. Would you be open to that discussion? If so, would you prefer it to occur privately or are you open to a public discussion (and, if so, where?)?

[Harry Baird]

Hq, your efforts are heroic. Unfortunately, you are dealing with ideologues, who are incapable of reason in this area.

Mind might emerge out of matter, they assert, and it's up to henry quirk to prove that it cannot, as though this proof had not already been provided. Only fools believe that consciousness can emerge out of non-consciousness. You have been altogether too accommodating of these fools, hq, in allowing that you are open to a proof of mind out of matter. That door doesn't open. It is locked shut. You need not affirm your openness to it.

I've already pointed out that "Mind out of matter" is analogous to "Fire drowns" or "Lego bricks can be arranged into a meal". If your Lego bricks are already made of chocolate, as has been suggested (or something like it - I forget), and thus can be arranged into a meal, then we're working with panpsychism, not physicalism, but it is physicalism that these fools propose.

"But wetness emerges out of non-wet particles", comes the desperate cry, "and thus consciousness might emerge out of particles too".

There are two possibilities here:

1. Wetness is a physical property. This, though, is irrelevant to demonstrating that a (non-physical) mind might emerge out of matter. All it shows is that physical stuff emerges out of physical stuff. Well, sure, that's exactly what we'd expect, but it doesn't at all help the physicalist case of "mind from matter".
2. Wetness is a mental property. Well, sure, the mind-brain-body complex interacts with physical particles of a certain structure and perceives wetness, but this, again, does nothing to demonstrate that mind itself can emerge out of arrangements of physical particles, only that, once a mind exists, it can translate physical inputs into mental properties.

So, you guys have got nothing, but you see fit to try to shift the burden of proof onto hq. How weak. If you can demonstrate that mind can emerge from matter, as hq has been so persistently been challenging you to do, then do so - but you quite obviously can't, because it's impossible, and thus it's unsurprising that you haven't even attempted it.

I'm pleased that @bahman has finally raised "the hard problem". This is recognition that, as hq has been oh so patiently pointing out in other words, there is as yet no solution to this problem - and, indeed, there cannot be, because, as outlined above, it is insoluble on its own terms. The only solution - in other terms - is to adopt an alternative ontological approach, such as substance dualism (my preferred approach) or idealism.

I think that it's worth also raising:

1. David Chalmers's philosophical zombie argument, and,
2. John Searle's Chinese room argument

(I say that these are worth raising because they might benefit casual readers of this thread, not because I expect our antagonists to actually respond to them).

[phyllo]

fools

It's sad that you went down this road.